The Missing Hotspot ---The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.

JoNova Blog ^ | JoNova

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

If greenhouses gases are warming the planet that warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or ozone depletion etc etc.

***********************************************

See the Graphs at JoNova website

**********************************

Look at A above, the greenhouse gas fingerprint is markedly different from the rest and dominates the overall predicted pattern in graph F. The big problem for the believers of AGW is that years of radiosonde measurements can’t find any warming, as shown in part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 of the US CCSP 2006 report

*************************************

Is there any way the missing hot-spot doesn’t fatally kill the greenhouse theory?

Perhaps we’re looking in the wrong spot and the hot-spot is lurking somewhere else?

If we are, that gets us right back to square one. The theory of greenhouse gas warming depends on finding a hotter spot of air above the equator… if that hot spot is somewhere else, the greenhouse theory itself collapses in a heap. It means either the greenhouse effect is not causing much of the recent warming, or the greenhouse theory is just plain wrong. AGW supporters are not asking this question because they can’t win either way.

Possibly we just can’t measure the air temperatures accurately enough to find the hot-spot?

Maybe, but we’ve been recording temperatures up there repeatedly for decades, and it’s not that the hot-spot is weak—it’s absent. There is no sign at all.

AGW says: Santer and Sherwood have found the missing hot spot.

Skeptics say: Santer uses statistics to show that the hot spot might be hidden under the noise. He hasn’t found any sign of warming–just the sign of fog in the results. Sherwood ignores the thermometers altogether and uses wind gauges to tell us the temperature. (Who’d a thought?!)

On my blog there’s more answers to the claims that the hot spot is not missing here.

See all posts tagged “Missing Hot Spot”

The bottom line is that either the thermometers are wrong or the theory is.

On David Evans site there’s a full definitive explanation of the missing hot spot and all the common attempts to rebut it on one pdf here (25 pages). If you can’t open it in Mozilla try Explorer.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This is an

*******************************************

EXCERPT**********************************

[refermech]

The truth is that the earth has a self regulating environment. If this were not true life on earth would have ceased to exist millenniums ago. IMHO.

[InterceptPoint]

It means either the greenhouse effect is not causing much of the recent warming, or the greenhouse theory is just plain wrong.

I vote for "just plain wrong". I recall reading a study or two over the years that argued from straight thermodynamic principles that the Greenhouse Effect is impossible.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the 25 page PDF referenced at the JoNova document extracted above....we have this statement:

*******************************EXCERPT********************************

Scarcely anyone knows about the missing hotspot and its significance. This proves that alarmists do not tell us when they find evidence against their idea that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.

[agere_contra]

To unpack this a bit.

The effect of CO2 doubling on temperature is probably the best example of a lone variable that defines the AGW controversy. Let's call it T2xCO2 for brevity.

The value of T2xCO2 has been extensively modelled and - to some extent - matched against experiment.

With what result?

Richard S. Lindzen - the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT - is one of the world's foremost meteorologists. His models of T2xCO2 predict a 0.3 degree C increase in temperature from CO2 doubling. In other words T2xCO2 =0.3 according to Lindzen.

Other meteorologists have published their own non-feedback models with differing assumptions - the consensus of these non-feedback models comes to about 0.5 degree C per CO2 doubling. T2xCO2 =0.5 according to these other meteorologists.

In distinction to the result of these models the IPCC's assessments of climate change predict that the temperature will go up ~ 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. T2xCO2 =3 according to the IPCC

Why this enormous difference? The reason is that the IPCC rely on models that assume the presence of a powerful warming feedback in the upper atmosphere, and Lindzen et al do not.

Both sides cannot be correct. T2xCO2 has a real value, and these two schools of thought predict values of T2xCO2 which are nearly an order of magnitude apart.

Fortunately the assumptions underpinning the models are testable, which is to say: disprovable.

In a statement given as far back as 1997 Lindzen cautioned that the models used by the IPCC predicted a temperature anomaly in the troposphere that is not observed in nature.

The feedback mechanisms assumed by the IPCC mdels would - of necessity - create a “hot spot” some 10km above the Earth’s surface. Radiosonde balloons do not detect this hot spot. Therefore the IPCC models must be incorrect.

However the models of CO2 forcing that Lindzen et al have developed do agree with troposphere temperatures shown by radiosonde observation - that is to say, the assumptions of their models agree with reality.

And the Lindzen models show a temperature response to CO2 doubling which is some ten times smaller than the IPCC results. The Lindzen et al values for T2xCO2 are not necessarily correct, but must be closer to reality than the IPCC models.

You can see right there the dynamo that drives the AGW furore - the IPCC's assessment of climate-forcing from CO2 is about six times that of MIT meteorologists. Ten times that of Lindzen.

The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm. This is a ~30% increase in CO2 levels since the onset of the Industrial revolution. Fitting a 30% increase against the median result from non-IPCC models of 0.5 degrees per doubling gives us a temperature increase of ~ 0.15 degrees Centigrade.

So our best estimate of the effect of the 30% post-revolution change in CO2 is a temperature increase of about 0.15 degrees C. This is our best estimate of man's impact on global temperature.

Climate variation since 900 AD is reasonably well-attested. The climate has followed a sinusoidal pattern of + or - 2 degrees C.

Within this 4 degree modulation, 0.15 degrees C from over a hundred and fifty years of industrialization is a tiny change. There is therefore no scientific evidence to support all the carefully-promulgated hysteria about Anthropogenic CO2.

Please note: as far as I know nobody calls the CO2 doubling parameter T2xCO2 except for me on this thread, just now. I can't seem to find a consensus on the parameter's name in the literature

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Thanks for that excellent explanation...

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks....this is getting interesting....

[Star Traveler]

The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.

Well, the "hot video" below will probably be more crucial to you convincing all your relatives and friends and coworkers... :-)

---

It’s one thing to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite another to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...

THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply one video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the one...

---

The following is an excellent video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.

“The Great Global Warming Swindle”

If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link. Information about BitTorrent protocol and BitTorrent clients and their comparison at these three links (in this sentence). Some additional BitTorrent information here and here.

Download it here...
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[This is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size. This link is the information about it, and you have to click the download link to get it on your BitTorrent client software. You'll also find users' comments here, too.]

It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.

Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course..., and also, you can download flash video on a website either yourself or some software doing it.]

Buy it on DVD here...
[this would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...] At Amazon, it seems to be high-priced now and have only a few copies right now.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE

At WAGtv (a UK shop), but don't know about shipping. The price is reasonable, though.
https://www.wagtv.com/product/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-322.html
[And..., some information from WAGtv about this item.]

---

Also, in split parts on YouTube...

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GjOgQN1Jco

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI2GfbfrYw

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N9benJh3Lw

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Credits (Part 9 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1ifP-ri58

[browardchad]

Thanks for the “unpacking.”

[Kenny Bunk]

Fellows. It's me.
Every time I start my John Deere backhoe, it gives off a little puff of like, this dark gray smoke. Obviously, I can't apologize to the white men that I have killed with this infernal engine.
However, I do offer a heartfelt apology to the women, children, Gays and Lesbians (I had always thought Lesbians WERE gay, sorry, who knew?), members of federally protected minority groups, Greenpeace, and any of the transgendered community who are suffering lung problems. I also have driven the Kanagaroo Rat to extinction. In fact, it has been many years since I have seen one in Maine.

Is there anyway I can make amends by buying carbon credits from Al Gore? Can I sue John Deere?

[Red Badger]

What izzit about men and their hoes?..........

[Kenny Bunk]

You callin John Deere a hoe?

Besides, john and I are just friends!

[Red Badger]

[READINABLUESTATE]

Thanks

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Dropping this link here,...home of the 25 page PDF mentioned by JoNova :

http://sciencespeak.com/

***************************** EXCERPT******************************

About Us

Science Speak is a scientific modeling and mathematical research company, and we speak about some science issues.

David Evans has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He helped build the carbon accounting model for the Australian Government that tracks carbon in plants, debris, soilds, and agricultural products. He researches mathematics, in the areas of Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials. While valuable, this activity pays nothing. So David has been investing on the stock market, and doing the odd consulting job, since 1990. David also has a keen interest in monetary history, banking, and detecting scams.

Joanne Nova has been explaining science as a professional speaker, TV host, radio presenter, and book author for over a decade. She's performed in town halls, five star hotels, schools, outback communities, and in a House briefing room in Washington. Her clients include professional associations of accountants, doctors, engineers, financial planners, and teachers. She explains why gold is THE place to be in a credit crisis, and how the global warming gravy train kept going long after it ran out of steam.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Interesting stuff at the David Evans website...Science Speak...for example:

http://sciencespeak.com/

heading is

Global Warming

The essence of the scientific dispute over global warming, explained simply for lay people. Oct 2009. It's just over two assumptions (guesses), made in the early 1980s when there was insufficient data. One assumption has since been disproved, and the second is looking dubious. The chronology is important. The assumption was disproved in 1999, after the IPCC had been set up, Kyoto was signed, a huge bureaucracy was in place to deal with carbon emissions, and the western climate research establishment was lavishly spending billions looking to blame carbon dioxide for global warming. Too many jobs and careers were at stake for the bureaucracy and scientists to turn back. Hence the fracas.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from David Evans website....a PDF:

Now it is really getting interesting:

Manufacturing Money, and Global Warming

*************************************EXCERPTS**********************************

Dr David Evans, david.evans@sciencespeak.com 25 October 2009

Executive Summary

 Modern money is paper, manufactured by banks out of thin air. Banks make something from nothing. This is the story of the rise and abuse of that great power, a high-level view of the current financial bubble and its causes and consequences.

 Modern money is created by debt. The growth of the bubble is tracked by the ratio of debt (money) to GDP (size of the economy). It started at its normal level of 150% in 1982. By 1987 it had reached 235%, the previous record set in 1929 on the eve of the Great Depression. By 2007 it had soared to 340%, and by mid 2009 it was 375%—nearly 20% of GDP is now spent on interest. There is now scarcely any more disposable income for taking on yet more debt. We are hitting the wall.

 The financial bubble greatly advantages the banks and the financial smarties who know how to take advantage of the ways money is manufactured. The bubble has been extremely profitable for them. Each time the bubble faltered, it was reignited by the banks and government through loosening safeguards on money manufacture, flooding the economy with easy money, low interest rates, encouraging price bubbles in asset markets, or covertly suppressing interest rates on the bond market (the Clinton strategy). This is easily the world’s biggest and deepest bubble, ever. It has not ended yet. When it does, the debt will have to repaid or inflated away.

 The return of the debt-to-GDP ratio to its normal level requires a drop of 15% - 25% of GDP. We can do it fast or do it slow, or politicians can opt for high inflation to try and avoid the pain.

 The newest game by the banks is carbon emissions trading. The plan is to manufacture emission credit certificates out of thin air, trade them between big financial companies, and compel the rest of us pay for them by producing real goods and services. The new financial slavery.

 Carbon emission permits are the latest paper currency, brought to you by the same folks who profited from the world’s largest financial bubble. Same structure, same modus operandi, same beneficiaries, and the same use of exaggerations, half-truths, and tricky government statistics.

 Banks want carbon trading. They do not make a profit from a carbon tax, which would be fairer and simpler. Governments are not offering a carbon tax, only cap and trade. Ever wondered why?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See #19 ....will be back later.